Why does the New China News Agency employ a Palestinian journalist who injects his personal biases into his reporting on Israeli issues. Could it be, perhaps, that Xinhua can’t tell the difference? Or does it even care?
No More Tax Funds from Israel to PA
Israel National News
Israel will be withholding tax funds destined for the Palestinian Authority following the UN vote last week. The PA’s status as a de facto “sovereign state” not only calls into question the legal basis of returning those tax funds, it calls into question the entire legal nature of the relationship between Israel and the PA. To wit:
It [the UN declaration] also circumvented the mandate for final status negotiations with Israel as required by the internationally-recognized Oslo Accords signed by the PA and Israel in the 1990s. By abrogating that agreement, there now exists a legal question as to whether or not the entire document is null and void – including the Paris Protocols, the section delineating economic agreements between Israel and the PA.
Somebody in the PA either didn’t think this through, or didn’t care. Perhaps because they believe this is the beginning of the end for Israel. It is nothing of the kind, of course, but this wouldn’t be the first time the Palestinians have miscalculated badly, would it?
- Mideast Expert: PA’s Turn to UN Violates Oslo Accords (israelnationalnews.com)
- Israel May Declare Oslo Dead and Buried (israelnationalnews.com)
- Jerusalem threatens to cancel Oslo Accords if Palestinians go ahead with UN statehood bid (timesofisrael.com)
- UN Palestine Resolution Killed Oslo (jewishpress.com)
- PA radio broadcasts song glorifying suicide attacks (timesofisrael.com)
“The World According to Carter”
The New York Sun
November 22, 2006
As we take stock of the events of the past month in the Mideast, it is worth remembering that even intelligent, well-meaning American statesmen are taken in by a Palestinian party line that ignores or alters facts in support of its own version of history. Jimmy Carter has done much good in his life, but his despicable revisionism about Israel has threatened to overshadow his contributions.
Dershowitz suggests that Carter is outright anti-Israel. I am not yet ready to make such an assertion. Nonetheless, this article reminds us why Carter and those who follow his line of thinking deserve no credibility in the debate over the future of the region.
Jon Tobin and I don’t agree on everything, but even if you are the furthest thing from a neocon, you need to read this op/ed from yesterday.
The quote that everyone should have emblazoned on their consciousness is this one:
The main truth about this conflict has always been guided by one fact: neither the Palestinians nor their backers were willing then to acknowledge the rights of the Jews. It is only now after decades of intransigence that the Arabs say they want a state. But the common thread from 1947 to today’s debate is the willingness of much of the world to delegitimize Jewish rights and to bypass negotiations.
Even to a moderate like me who has never hesitated to lambaste Israel’s leadership (especially Bibi’s Likud) for the continuing idiocy around the settlements issue, it is becoming painfully clear that the Palestinian goals have never changed. A two-state solution increasingly appears to be a stepping-stone toward a single-state solution. For if it were not, the Palestinian Authority would have recognized Israel’s right to exist long ago.
The painful truth is that successive waves of Palestinian leaders – starting from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1926 to Mahmoud Abbas and the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, et al – have talked themselves into a corner. Even if they wanted to recognize Israel, their legitimacy among their people now depends on their dedication to pushing the Jews into the sea.
That is sad. Because that makes this conflict less about a land agreement and more existential for both sides. And an existential conflict can never lead to peace.
Is Israel’s left justified in suspecting that the diaspora leaders’ efforts to strengthen Jewish identity are coloured by the country’s rightist-religious Zeitgeist? If so, they will always exclude Jewish liberals. Worse, they will shore up an aggressive pro-Israel loyalism that denies the only feasible future for a Jewish, democratic Israel: sharing the land with a Palestinian state. Israel needs to recover its pragmatic Zionism. It cannot afford a governing ethos infused by a religious fundamentalism concerned chiefly with settlement, conquest and conflict.
I’d feel a lot better about sharing the land with a Palestinian state if I could be sure that the Palestinians weren’t just going to use the two-state solution as a stepping stone to shoving us into the Mediterranean.
- Israel: U.N. Vote Does Not A Palestinian State Make (lynleahz.com)
- How about one Jewish state, end of story (israelmatzav.blogspot.com)
- Israeli-Palestinian two state solution nearing ‘doomsday’ scenario (thestar.com)
- Khaled Meshal, Hamas Leader, Delivers Defiant Speech at Anniversary Celebration (nytimes.com)
- Palestinians Still Embrace Spirit of 1947 (commentarymagazine.com)
How Israel peacefully and unilaterally gave up the administration of Gaza, despite domestic opposition, in the fervent hope that it would be enough to begin a final peace process.
I had a talk with a friend the other day who was in the IDF at the time. He grew emotional explaining how it broke his heart to drag fellow Israelis out of Gaza in August 2005, but he did it because it was his duty, and because he hoped (like all of us) that it would mean progress toward peace.
It didn’t, and this should ever be an illustration that words like “hope” and “good faith” are increasingly hollow when dealing with the leaders of the PA and Hamas.
- And again: Clinton excludes Israel from counter-terrorism conference (ifaynsh.wordpress.com)
- Mashaal vows Hamas will not concede land (jpost.com)
- Grand Reportage – Peace and Pally Statehood – Ceasefire EPIC failure of judgement… (israeliidf.org)
- The 5 Myths That Empower Hamas (iranaware.com)